Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/10/2000 09:02 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29(JUD) Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to terms of legislators and to the time of convening and length of regular sessions of the legislature. This was the first hearing for this resolution in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Parnell testified to this resolution that he sponsored explaining it would place before the voters in the 2000 general election, a question as to whether or not to shorten the legislative session from the current 120 days to 75 days. He spoke to the history of the sessions noting that there was originally no limit on the length of sessions and that deliberations would sometimes continue into the summer. In 1984, he said, Alaskan voters amended the constitution to impose the 120-day limit and the legislators found that they could conclude the peoples' business in the time allowed. Co-Chair Parnell predicted the legislature could do better by accomplishing their business in an even shorter period of time. Co-Chair Parnell stated that a shorter session would help the state lower the cost of government by saving approximately $1.21 million. He also thought that a shorter session would foster a citizen legislature, noting that Alaskans have not asked for full-time legislators. Because many members have jobs outside of the legislature, he speculated that more individuals would be able to serve as legislators. Finally, he thought a shorter session would focus attention on those matters that are the most important: budget matters, a small number of bills and oversight of the executive branch. Co-Chair Parnell noted a pending amendment that changes the session length from seventy-five days to ninety days, saying he would support the amendment. Senator Phillips noted that he was serving in the House of Representatives the year that session continued until June 28. He thought that the 120-day limit is a service to the people of Alaska and to the legislature itself. Senator Wilken supported the legislation but qualified that he felt it needed some changes. He stated that this is a "better government" bill that will save the state money and encourage more people to serve on the legislature. Senator Wilken spoke of the advantages of delaying the start of session until February. He talked about how busy the month of December is preparing for session along with the usual holiday activities, plus arranging to be away from his business for several months. As a result, he said, each area of his life gets shorted because there isn't enough time. This bill allows legislators the month of January to prepare for the upcoming session, he stressed. Senator Adams supported the legislation as long as the ninety days of session are spent in Juneau. He expressed the concerns of the Minority Caucus as to the start date. While he would like session to begin in February, many of his caucus members would like sessions to start as soon as possible after the start of a new year. He thought the shorter sessions would save the state money, but wanted to know how to prevent those members of the legislature who claimed excessive interim per diem. Senator P. Kelly did not support the bill. Although he did not want the session to go beyond 120 days, he thought placing a time limit is a mistake. He spoke about the intentions of the founding fathers of the country. "The political power is invested in the people. Whether you are a fan of the legislature or not, the power of the people lies in the legislature. By limiting the length of the sessions, you 'put a fence' around the power of the people and turn more power over to the executive branch." Senator P. Kelly used tort reform and juvenile crime as examples of issues that required a length of time to construct. He thought that a 90-day limit on the legislature would have allowed the governor to "run out the clock" and prevent these plans from being enacted into law. Senator P. Kelly thought a 90-day interruption from individual's lives was just as significant as a 120-day session. He added that families with children would have difficulty making arrangements for school that did not last an entire semester. He also thought this would cause difficulty for staff, many of whom work only during the session. He predicted that it would be difficult to attract competent people to work for the legislature. Senator Leman agreed with many of the comments made by his fellow Committee members. He told the Committee that he had introduced similar legislation in an earlier legislature but that resolution had received no hearings. He supported the 75-day session but understood that other members felt 90 days is more appropriate. Senator Leman said he believed that the drafters of the state constitution simply made a mistake when they did not set a time limit for session. Senator Leman stated that he would also like to change the provision requiring a three-quarter vote before withdrawing money from the Constitution Budget Reserve. He surmised that the challenge of meeting this requirement is the main reason sessions currently take as long as they do. Senator Leman agreed with Senator P. Kelly's argument that some tough issues take time, but felt that 90 days was adequate. Senator Leman approved of the delayed starting date but also expressed a desire to have session completed by Mother's Day. Amendment #1: This amendment makes the following changes to the bill. Page 1, line 2, following "legislators": Insert ", to the location of legislative sessions," Page 1, line 12, following "convene": Insert "in Anchorage" Page 2, following line 6: Insert a new resolution section to read: Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read: "Section 9. Special Sessions. Special sessions may be called by the governor or by vote of two-thirds of the legislators. The vote may be conducted by the legislative council or as prescribed by law. At special sessions called by the governor, legislation shall be limited to subjects designated in his proclamation calling the session, to subjects presented by him, and the reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after adjournment of the last regular session. Special sessions are held in Anchorage and are limited to thirty days." [Changed text underlined] Senator Phillips moved for adoption and Co-Chair Parnell objected. Senator Phillips stated that holding legislative sessions in Anchorage would greater accomplish the same goals expressed in this resolution: to save money and increase the number of people who would want to run for office. In addition, because a majority of the population lives along the Railbelt, he surmised that the people would have more say in their government, which was a concern voiced by Senator P. Kelly. He noted that moving the legislature would allow Senator Leman to be home for Mother's Day. He also believed there would be a greater number of people to choose from to fill staff positions. Senator Donley supported the amendment but pointed out that this section of the constitution also contains a provision that allows the governor to set the agenda for special sessions. He referred to instances where the legislature was gathered for a special session called by the governor, but was unable to address important matters other than what was dictated by the governor in the proclamation calling for the special session. He told the Committee that there has been an on-going debate between the attorney general and the legislature's legal representation as to whether the legislature has the power to call itself into parallel special sessions to address important issues. He thought this is a serious weakness in the constitution. He agreed with Senator P. Kelly's statement that there is a problem with the current separation of powers in the state. Senator Donley moved to amend Amendment #1 to delete the sentence beginning on line 10 of the amendment. At special sessions called by the governor, legislation shall be limited to subjects designated in his proclamation calling the session, to subjects presented by him, and the reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after adjournment of the last regular session. Without objection, Amendment #1 was AMENDED. Co-Chair Parnell strongly objected to the amended amendment saying he felt that moving the location of legislative sessions is a completely separate issue. He stated that it should be addressed in a separate resolution with a separate fiscal note and detailed analysis. Senator Phillips again spoke to the advantages of moving the legislature to Anchorage noting that 28 or 29 legislators live within a 50-mile radius of Anchorage. He stressed that there would be a different per diem situation and less travel. He also stated that there would be better accessibility and used the make-up of the audience as an example of what he deemed was poor representation of "real people." He believed that bureaucrats and lobbyists have too much access to the legislature and citizens are too removed. He felt this amendment is in alignment with the bill's intent to save money. Senator Donley noted another advantage of the amended amendment is that it will help mitigate the problem with the "pocket veto" after the sine die adjournment of the second sessions. He compared allowing the governor the power of this veto to that of a monarchy. This amendment would make it easier to call special sessions to consider these veto overrides, he stated. Senator P. Kelly admonished that the 90-day session itself makes the pocket veto more powerful. He explained that this is because there would be less time to deal with vetoes during the regular sessions. He stressed that the pocket veto is another instance where the governor has more power to unilaterally thwart the will of the legislature. Co-Chair Parnell countered that the amendment does not increase executive power with respect to the pocket veto because the legislature still will have to call itself into special session. He stressed that the problem exists now and will not be exacerbated. The issue, he said, is not the length of the session but rather if the legislature has the courage or power to call itself back into session. Senator P. Kelly responded that currently, the legislature can deal with vetoes during the regular session. If the regular session is shortened, he predicted that there would be less ability to address governor vetoes because of the fewer days to deal with a veto under the normal circumstances. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Phillips, Senator Donley, and Co-Chair Torgerson OPPOSED: Senator Wilken, Senator Green, Senator Leman, Senator Adams, and Co-Chair Parnell The MOTION FAILED (4-5) Amendment #2: This amendment changes the beginning date of legislator's terms of office and the starting date of the legislative session from the fourth Monday of February to the first Monday of February. Co-Chair Parnell MOVED for adoption. Senator Adams did not object to the amendment, but again noted the concerns of members of the Minority Caucus with the start date and the resulting finish date of legislative sessions. Co-Chair Parnell spoke to the concerns saying that the intent is to make it easier for individuals to serve in the legislature. He talked about family moves and the need for many to return home for seasonal jobs. He balanced the proposed session dates with the timing of the Spring revenue forecast. He elaborated upon Senator Wilken's comments about the busy month of December. Senator P. Kelly said he was unsure how to vote on this amendment qualifying that he is unaffected by the starting and finishing dates of the sessions. He stressed that the purpose of the amendment is for the convenience of the members only, rather than the needs of the people. He talked about the makeup of the legislature when he first joined the legislature in the 1980's. He had noticed a predominance of young single men and retired people and has since been pleased to see the gaps filled with the addition of people with families. Senator Green asked when the swearing-in of newly elected legislators would occur. She talked about the increased length of time between the election date and the date the term begins. Co-Chair Parnell responded that this legislation does not change the term of office, which is currently set in statutes at AS.24.05.080. He read the statutes, "the terms of each member of the legislature begins on the second Monday of January following a presidential election year." However, he continued, "following a gubernatorial election year, the term of each member begins on the third Tuesday in January." Senator Green asked about the tradition of swearing-in new members on the first day of session and if there would be a ceremony four weeks prior to the start of session. Senator Donley asked what the purpose of Section 1 of the resolution was since it has no impact and is controlled by law. The section amends Article II, Section 3 of the constitution. Co-Chair Parnell read a portion of Article II, ".unless otherwise provided by law." Unless the statute is changed, he explained the terms would not be changed. Senator Donley wanted to know why was the section of the bill necessary. It was determined that the bill drafters deemed the section necessary. Senator Donley still questioned the need. Co-Chair Parnell pointed out that the "guts" of the bill begins with Section 2. While he did not object to removing Section 1, he did not know how to treat this matter within the amendment on the table. There was no objection to the motion before the Committee and the amendment was ADOPTED. Amendment #3: This amendment changes the length of session in the resolution from 75 days to 90 days. Co-Chair Parnell moved for adoption and explained. Senator Leman objected to make the comment that he thought a 75-day session was the best option. However, he felt 90 days was still an improvement over the current 120 days. Senator P. Kelly stated he thought the number of days is meaningless and that the resolution still places a fence around the people. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Phillips, Senator Donley, Senator Adams, Senator Green, Senator Wilken, Co- Chair Torgerson and Co-Chair Parnell OPPOSED: Senator Leman The MOTION PASSED (8-1) Amendment #1 [revisited]: Senator Donley commented that he felt the amendment contains two different issues. One is the proposal to move the legislative session to Anchorage and the other concerns holding special sessions in Anchorage. He wanted to divide the question to consider each matter separately. Senator Donley made a motion to rescind action taken on Amendment #1. Senator Adams objected to ask if the intent was to address the special session provision and not the location. Senator Donley assured him that this was correct. Senator Adams removed his objection. AT EASE 9:46 AM / 9:51 AM Senator Donley WITHDREW his motion to rescind action taken on Amendment #1 Amendment #4: This amendment deletes the following sentence from Article II, Section 9 of the state constitution. "At special sessions called by the governor, legislation shall be limited to subjects designated in his proclamation calling the session, to subjects presented by him, and the reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after adjournment of the last regular session." The language was not part of the original legislation, but was contained in Amendment #1. Senator Donley moved for adoption of this conceptual amendment. Tape: SFC - 00 #23, Side B 9:54 AM Senator Donley explained that this amendment would have no affect on where special sessions are held or the location of regular legislative sessions. He explained that it instead removes the current prohibition on the legislature to work on other subjects during a special session called by the governor. Co-Chair Parnell objected, stressing that the legislature already has the ability to call itself into special session and designate the subjects to be addressed. He did not want to give the legislators or the governor the ability to "rehash" matters already addressed in a regular session. He stated that this amendment goes beyond the scope of the resolution. Co-Chair Torgerson wanted to know if this would allow any bills pending between a first and second session to be brought up during a special session by a member. He also asked if a member could introduce any legislation on any topic during a special session. Senator Donley responded the allowable subject matters would be subject to the Uniform Rules of the legislature. He noted that these rules are adopted by two-thirds of both legislative bodies. Senator Donley spoke of the difficulty for the legislature to call itself into a special session saying it only takes a couple members to block the will of the body. For this reason, he stated there have been only a few such sessions. Senator Donley then commented that the governor could "blackmail" the legislature into working on only what the governor chooses. Senator Donley noted there is no provision in the constitution stating whether or not the legislature can call itself into a parallel special session to one that is called by the governor. He said this opens legal questions, which would go away with the deletion of the sentence restricting topics in a special session called by the governor. Co-Chair Parnell stressed this would appear to render mute, any session limit because any topic could be brought up. He did not want to see this, he stated. Co-Chair Torgerson concurred. Senator P. Kelly warned that legislators should get ready for multiple special sessions. He said that other states with abbreviated sessions have many special sessions despite having standing committees. Co-Chair Torgerson asked if Senator Donley's question was whether or not the legislature can call itself into special session to address certain topics during a special session called by the governor. Senator Donley affirmed and made the following statement. "The unelected governor's attorney general has opined that we can't do it. Clearly, the executive branch has exerted its authority to try to claim that we can't do that." Senator Wilken appreciated what the sponsor was trying to do, but was uncomfortable taking on this issue in this manner. He felt it was worthy of discussion but should be addressed separately. Senator Donley likened this amendment to concerns raised by Senator P. Kelly. Senator Donley felt there were a lot of problems with the separation of powers situation. He also supported shorter sessions and claimed that this amendment would be the first link. He thought this amendment would soften the impact of the 90-day sessions. He did not think the resolution could pass unless considered as a package. Co-Chair Torgerson suggested adding "legislature" to the language to allow the legislature to specify topics for consideration during special sessions called by the governor. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Green, Senator Phillips, Senator Donley and Senator Leman OPPOSED: Senator Adams, Senator Wilken, Co-Chair Parnell and Co-Chair Torgerson The MOTION PASSED (5-4) Amendment #5: This amendment makes the following changes to the resolution, and subsequently moves legislative sessions to Anchorage. Page 1, line 2, following "legislators": Insert ", to the location of legislative sessions," Page 1, line 12, following "convene": Insert "in Anchorage" Page 2, following line 6: Insert a new resolution section to read: Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read: "Section 9. Special Sessions. Special sessions may be called by the governor or by vote of two-thirds of the legislators. The vote may be conducted by the legislative council or as prescribed by law. At special sessions called by the governor, legislation shall be limited to subjects designated in his proclamation calling the session, to subjects presented by him, and the reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after adjournment of the last regular session. Special sessions are held in Anchorage and are limited to thirty days." This amendment consists of portions of the language contained in Amendment #1, some of which does not appear in the original resolution. Senator Donley moved for adoption. Co-Chair Parnell objected. He quoted AS 24.05.100 (b), "a special session may be held at any location in the state." He stressed that limiting a special session to one location is outside the scope of the original resolution, which is to limit the number of days the legislature is in session. He also noted that the legislature has statutory flexibility to allow for the potential need to call a session in another area of the state in the case of an emergency. He did not want to place a location limitation in the constitution. Senator P. Kelly suggested a provision stating that the governor can not dictate where a special session is held. He noted that the governor does not pay the costs of a special session and therefore has no stake in where the session is held. The suggestion was acceptable to Senator Donley, who stated that this is a cost-saving measure. He thought that allowing the legislative body the ability to choose where it meets reflects appropriate separation of powers. He supported maintaining the flexibility of allowing the location to change when necessary. Senator Donley suggested asking the Division of Legal Services to assist in drafting an amendment and WITHDREW his motion to adopt Amendment #5. Senator Phillips continued arguing in favor of moving the legislative sessions to Anchorage. While he would vote to move SJR 29 from Committee, he warned he would again offer an amendment to relocate the legislature when the resolution is before the whole Senate. Co-Chair Torgerson noted a draft fiscal note from the Legislative Affairs Agency that was tailored to the 90-day session. If the resolution moves from Committee, this draft will become the fiscal note. Senator P. Kelly stated that although he strongly opposes the resolution, he would vote to move it from Committee. Senator Donley wanted the resolution to stay in Committee long enough for him to draft an amendment to reflect Senator P. Kelly's suggestion and present it to the members. Co-Chair Parnell commented on the resolution, avowing that the "fence" argument is a fa ade. He talked about the work done during the interim and the ability of legislators to serve their constituents and give oversight to state agencies. One suggestion would be to have a year-round session with full-time legislators. However, he noted that voters in 1982 stated they wanted a part-time legislature and he agreed. Co-Chair Parnell pointed out that if an issue came up during the interim affecting a member's constituent, the co-chairs could call a meeting of the Committee to address that issue. Therefore, he did not agree that an unlimited session would allow for better monitoring of the Administration. Co-Chair Parnell stressed that the "fence" is to not allow voters to vote on the length of session. He stated, "If our government is indeed founded as our constitution says, 'all government originates with the people and is founded upon their will only' what better way to express their will than to be able to vote and tell us whether we should meet and get our job done in 90 days." Co-Chair Parnell stated that he does not quit being a senator when he returns home, although he has a business to attend to. He noted that all legislators have year-round staff. Co-Chair Parnell commented on the budget process and the efforts made during the last month of session. He told the Committee about the State of Louisiana's attempt to limit their legislative sessions to 30 days. The legislature in that state learned that the 30-day session turned over too much power to the governor, according to Co-Chair Parnell. He stated that SJR 29 is a balance. He noted that 32 state legislatures meet for a shorter length of time than Alaska and if this measure passes, 25 states will still have shorter sessions. Co-Chair Parnell felt this resolution was a reasonable measure based on the members' experience that they could get the required job done sooner. AT EASE 10:13 AM / 10:16 AM Co-Chair Torgerson ordered the resolution HELD in Committee to give Senator Donley an opportunity to draft an amendment. COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29(JUD) Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to terms of legislators and to the time of convening and length of regular sessions of the legislature. This resolution was heard earlier in the meeting and was brought back before the Committee for consideration of amendments submitted by Senator Donley. Amendment #6: This amendment inserts a new section on page 2, following line 6 of the resolution to read as follows. "Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read: Section 9. Special Sessions. Special sessions may be called by the governor or by vote of two-thirds of the legislators. The voted may be conducted by the legislative council or as prescribed by law. Special sessions are limited to thirty days. The location of special sessions is determined by the legislature as prescribed by law." Senator Donley noted that he had drafted this amendment at the same time the Division of Legal Services was drafting an amendment that accomplished the same objective. He deferred to Amendment #7 and therefore Amendment #6 was NOT OFFERED. AT EASE 10:56 AM / 10:57 AM Amendment #7: This amendment makes the following changes to the resolution. Page 1, line 2, following "legislators,": Insert ", to the location of special legislative sessions," Page 2, following line 6: Insert a new section to read: "*Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read: Section 9. Special Sessions. Special sessions may be called by the governor or by vote of two- thirds of the legislators. The vote may be conducted by the legislative council or as prescribed by law. At special sessions called by the governor, legislation shall be limited to subjects designated in his proclamation calling the session, to subjects presented by him, and the reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after adjournment of the last regular session. Special sessions are held at a location determined by the legislature and are limited to thirty days." Senator Donley moved for adoption and Senator Wilken objected. Senator Donley spoke to his motion saying the amendment gives the legislature the power to determine where special sessions are held. Co-Chair Parnell noted that the legislature currently has the ability under law to choose the location for special sessions called by the legislature and the governor has the ability to choose the location for special sessions the governor calls. He asked why the amendment was necessary. Senator Donley replied that the governor can use the location of the special session to "blackmail the legislators" by forcing the legislature to spend a lot of the public's money unnecessarily. He thought this amendment is a cost saving measure and that the legislative body should be able to determine where it meets. Senator Wilken spoke against the amendment because he wanted special sessions to be "inconvenient, cumbersome, infrequent and yes, even expensive." He wanted business to be handled during the 90 days or 120 days allotted for regular sessions. Senator Wilken suggested if the matter is to be discussed, it should be taken up as a separate resolution. He stated his opposition to holding legislative sessions in Anchorage questioning the amount of work that would be accomplished. Senator Phillips exclaimed, "We're not getting anything done now!" Senator P. Kelly stressed the legislature is not in Juneau doing nothing. He exclaimed, "I'm sorry for the rest of you if you feel you are not doing anything but I am." He challenged that the only way to pass resolutions like this one is to say to the public, "We don't do anything when we come down here. We're bad. And because we're bad we should only be bad for 90 days or 75 days or 20 days, whatever it is." Senator P. Kelly suggested that some legislators get off the track because they forget why they're here. He stressed, "We are here to do the people's business. We are the people." Senator P. Kelly stated that when the governor calls special session it is often politically motivated. Senator P. Kelly said that the governor sets the location in Juneau so that when the legislature refuses to accomplish the governor's objectives, he can say, "the legislature came down here, spent all this money and they didn't accomplish anything." Senator P. Kelly surmised that this is one of the ways in which the governor is so powerful in this state. Senator P. Kelly warned that if this amendment is not adopted, the legislature is going to limit its power in special sessions. He predicted that there would be more special sessions and stressed that the Committee should at least try to make them less expensive. He agreed with Senator Wilken that it should be difficult for the legislature to call itself into special session but noted that the legislature should have control over the location of special sessions called by the governor. A roll call was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Green, Senator Phillips, Senator Donley, Senator Leman and Co-Chair Torgerson OPPOSED: Senator Adams, Senator Wilken and Co-Chair Parnell The MOTION PASSED (6-3) Co-Chair Parnell offered a motion to move SJR 29, 1- LS1162/D, as amended from Committee with a new fiscal note from the Legislative Affairs Agency. There was no objection and the resolution was REPORTED OUT of Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|